Saramma vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) And … on 15 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10422 of 2009(W)


1. SARAMMA W/O. LEYONSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. A.J.LAWRENCE S/O. JOSEPH,
3. A.J.FRANCIS S/O. JOSEPH,

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) AND LAND
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT

                For Petitioner  :SMT.R.RANJINI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :15/09/2009

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            W.P.(C).No.10422 of 2009-W

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009.

                     JUDGMENT

1.Lands of the petitioners were acquired for the

purpose of GCDA. A reference was made in relation

to certain other items of lands covered by the

same notification. The Reference Court answered

that reference. The matter was pending in an

appeal before this Court. Relying on the award of

the Reference Court, the petitioners filed

applications under Section 28A(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The pendency of those

applications is the cause of this writ petition.

2.With the passage of time, this Court has disposed

of the appeals. The 28A(1) applications of the

petitioners have, therefore, to be considered and

WP(C)10422/09 -: 2 :-

disposed of in accordance with law. The learned

Government Pleader points out that the

petitioners cannot rake up any issue relatable to

the appellate award by this Court and have to

confine themselves to the award passed by the

Reference Court on the basis of which alone the

application under Section 28A(1) is filed. That

is also an issue that has to be considered by the

officer dealing with the application under

Section 28A(1) and not for this Court to state to

them in the form of a caveat as to what they

shall do. I say this more importantly because,

such questions are covered by different judgments

and are also still pending for consideration by

this Court.

In the aforesaid background, this writ petition

is ordered leaving open all contentions and

directing that the applications filed by the

petitioners forming part of this writ petition

shall be taken up, considered and disposed of in

accordance with law within an outer limit of two

WP(C)10422/09 -: 3 :-

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/160909